PLATO

0EAI. YldvTOjv jj,i' ovv ahvvarojTarov

.
HE. ToSe Tolvvv fiVTjadrjvai SiKaiov eVt rourois".
0EAI. To TTolov
;
HE. On rod
firj
ovtos epcorrjdevTes rouVo/xa
60'
o Tt TTore Set (f>ipeLV, Trdarj
ovveaxoi-ieda aTTOpia.
fiGfiVTjaai
;
0EAI. ria)? yap ov;
HE. Mtui' ow ev iXdrrovL rivi vvv iaiiev (XTTopia
Trepi TO ov;
0EAI. 'E/x.oi jueV, cS
feW, et Suvaroi' elrrelv, iv
TtXeiovL (fyaLvofieda.
HE. TouTO ^ev TOLVVV ivravda Keladco Sir^Tropr]-
fievov Tri,Srj Se e^ tCTOu to tc oi^ /<:ai to /xi^ 6V diTO-
pia<; iJ.TiX'qcf)aTOV, vvv cXttIs rj^r] Kad^ direp dv
avro)v ddrepov etre dfivSporepov e'lre aacfiiarepov
dva(f)aivrjrai, /cat ddrepov ovrtos dva(f>aive(jdaL' koI
251
eav av ixrjBerepov ISetv hvvcojxeda, rov yovv Xoyov
OTTTjTTcp dv oloi re co/xev evTrpenearara Sicoaofieda
ovrcos d[i(f)OLV dp.a.
EAI. KaAtD?.
HE. Aeyco/xev Srj Kad^ ovrivd TTore rpoirov ttoXXols
6v6fj,aaL
ravrov rovro cKdarore Trpoaayopevopiev
.
EAI. Otoi' St7 Tt; TTapdSeLyfjba elrre.
37'
HE. Aeyofxev dvdpcoTrov hrj nov ttoXX' drra
eTTOVofxat^ovres, rd re ;i^pa;/iaTa i7Tt<^epovrs avrtp
/cat rd
axTJP'O.ra
/cat fieyeSr) /cat KaKias /cat aperas,
B 6V otj 77aat /cat erepots fivpLOts ov fiovov dvdpcoTrov
avrov elvai (j)ap.ev, dXXd /cat aya^oi' /cat erepa
ixTTeipa, /cat TaAAa
817
Kara rov avrov Xoyov ovrcos
ev eKaarov vrrodefMevot, TrdXcv avro TToXXd /cat TroAAot?
ovojxacri
Xeyofiev.
390
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Xo, nothing could be more impossible.
STR. Then there is this further thing which we
ought to remember.
THE.\ET. What is it
.''
STR. That when we were asked to what the
appellation of not-being should be applied, we were
in the greatest perplexity. Do you remember.'*
THEAET. Of course I do.
STR. Well, then, are we now in any less perplexity
about being ?
THEAET. It seems to me, stranger, that we are, if
possible, in even greater.
STR. This point, then, let us put down definitely
as one of complete perplexity. But since being and
not-being participate equally in the perplexity, there
is now at last some hope that as either of them
emerges more dimly or more clearly, so also will the
other emerge. If, however, we are able to see
neither of them, we will at any rate push our discussion
through between both of them at once as creditably
as we can.
THEAET. Good.
STR. Let us, then, explain how we come to be
constantly calling this same thing by many names.
THEAET. What, for instance
.-
Please give an
example.
STR. We speak of man, you know, and give him
many additional designations ; we attribute to him
colours and forms and sizes and vices and virtues,
and in all these cases and countless others we say
not only that he is man, but we say he is good and
numberless other things. So in the same way every
single thing which we supposed to be one, we treat
as many and call by many names.
391
PLATO
0EAI. 'AXr]6rj Xeyeis.
HE. "Odev ye, oifxai,
rot? re veois /cat rcov yepov-
Tcov TOIS OipLfxadeai doiviqv TrapeaKevaKafiev
evdvs
yap avTiXa^ecrdai iravrl irpoxeipov cos dSwarov rd
T TToAAa ev Kai ro ev ttoXXo. etvat, /cat
StJ
ttov
yatpovcTLv ovK iaJvres dyaOov Xeyeiv dvdpcoTTOV,
C dXXd TO
fxev
dyadov dyadov, tov Be dvOpconov
dvdpojTTOv. evrvyxdveis ydp, c3 SeaiTrjre,
(Ls
eycopat, TroAAa/cis" ra roiavra ianovSaKoaiv, evlore
TTpecr^VTepois dvdpcoTTOLs, /cat vtto Trevias rrjs irepl
<f>p6vi^atv
KT-qaeuis rd roiavTO. TedavfxaKocn, /cat S-q
Ti Kal Trdcraocfyov olopievots tovto avrd dvrjvprjKevai.
0EAI. Tldvv [xev ovv.
HE. "Iva roivvv TTpos aTravras -qpLLV 6 Xoyos "p
Tovs TTcoTTore nepl ovaias /cat otlovv StaXexdevras,
D
euTO) /cat TTpos tovtovs Kal rrpos rovs dXXovs,
ocroLS efXTTpoadev hieiXeyjxeOa, rd vvv ws ev ipcoTTjaei
Xe)(dria6p.eva.
EAI. To. TTOia hrj;
HE. XloTepov fjLT^Te
ttjv ovaiav KLvrjaei /cat ardaei
TTpoadnrcofxev fXT^re
dXXo dXXcp fjirjBev
[xrjSei'i, oAA'
(Ls
dpLLKTa ovra Kal dSvvarov fxeraXafi^dveiv (zAAtj-
Xatv OVTOJS avrd ev to is Trap* rjpuv Xoyois ridcofiev;
Tj TTOVTa els TavTov ^vvdycojxev cLs Sward eTTiKOL-
vcovelv aAAT^AotS"; rj rd jxev, rd 8e pLiq; tovtcov, cb
392
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. True.
STR. And it is in this way, I fancy, that we have
provided a fine feast for youngsters and for old men
whose learning has come to them late in life ; for
example, it is easy enough for anyone to grasp the
notion that the many cannot possibly be one, nor
the one many, and so, apparently, they take pleasure
in saj-ing that we must not call a man good, but must
call the good good, and a man man. I fancy,
Theaetetus, you often run across people who take
such matters seriously ; sometimes they are elderly
men whose poverty of intellect makes them admire
such quibbles, and who think this is a perfect mine
of wisdom they have discovered.^
THEAET. Certainly.
STR. Then, to include in our discussion all those
who have ever engaged in any talk whatsoever about
being, let us address our present arguments to these
men as well as to all those with whom we were
conversing before, and let us employ the form of
questions.
THEAET. WTiat are the arguments
.''
STR. Shall we attribute neither being to rest and
motion, nor any attribute to anything, but shall we in
our discussions assume that they do not mingle and
cannot participate in one another.'' Or shall we
gather all things together, believing that they are
capable [of combining with one another ? Or are
some capable of it and others not ? Which of these
*
Those are here satirized who deny the possibility of all
except identical predication. Such were Antis'thenes,
Euthyderaus, and Dionysodorus. The two last are prob-
ably those referred to as old men whose learning came late
in life.
393
PLATO
E
&atT7jT, ri TTor dv avrovs Trpoaipeladai
<f>'q-
aatfiev;
0EAI. 'Eyco jxev vrrep avTOJV ovBev )(Ct) ttoos
TavTa aTTOKpiuaadai.
HE. Tt ovv ov Kad^ ev OLTTOKpLVOfxevos
i(f>'
eKacrrov
ra ^vpi^aiuovra eaKeijfa};
^
0EAI. KaAoj? Aeyets".^
HE. K.al TLdcofjLcv ye avrovs Xeyetv, el ^ovXet,,
TTpcoTOV ixrjhevl /jLrjSev pLTjSefJLLav SwafiLV ex^LV
KOLVoyvias els p.'qhev. ovkovv Kcvrjais re /cat ardcris
ovSafiij fiede^erov ovaias; .
252 0EAI. Ov yap ovv.
HE. Tt Se; ecrrai rrorepov avriov ovaias /xr) Trpoa-
Koivcjvovv
^
;
0EAI. OuK earat.
HE. Taxv 17
ravrrj ye
rfj
avvofxoXoyia Travra
avdarara yeyouev, (hs eoiKev, d/xa re rojv ro ttoLv
KLVOvvrojv /cat rojv
(hs ev lardvroiv /cat oaoi /car'
187^ TO. ovra Kara ravrd (haavrojs e^ovra elvai
(paaLV del' iravres yap ovroi ro ye etvat rrpoa-
dTTrovoLV, ol
fxev
ovrws KiveZadai Xeyovres, ol he
ovrcos earrjKor^ eluai.
0EAI. Ko/xtSi^ fjiev
ovv.
B
HE. Kat
fxrjv
Kal oaot rore jxev ^vvriOeaai ra
Trdvra, rore Se Staipovoiv, etre els ev /cat
ef
evos
dneipa e'lre els rrepas e^ovra aroLx^ta BLaipovfievoi
/cat e'/c rovra)v avvriOevres, ofiolajs
p^ev edv ev p,epeL
rovro rLdaJcri yiyvop^evov, 6p.ola)s Se /cat edv aei,
^
TL odv . . . ?a-Ke\pw ; attributed to the Stranger by
Badham.
2
jcaXuis X^7ets attributed to Theaetetus by Badham.
'
irpOCTKOLVOOVOVP W
;
irpOCKOLVUViiv BT.
394
THE SOPHIST
alternatives, Fheaetetus, should we say is their
choice ?
THEAET. I cannot answer these questions for them.
STR. Then why did you not answer each separately
and see what the result was in each case ?
THEAET. A good Suggestion.
STR. And let us, if you please, assume that they
say first that nothing has any power to combine with
anything else. Then motion and rest will have no
share in being, will they ?
THEAET. No.
STR. Well, then, will either of them be, if it has
no share in being ?
THEAET. It will not.
STR. See how by this admission everything is
overturned at once, as it seemsthe doctrine of
those who advocate universal motion, that of the
partisans of unity and rest, and that of the men who
teach that all existing things are distributed into
invariable and everlasting kinds. For all of these
make use of being as an attribute. One party says
that the universe
"
is
"
in motion, another that it
"
is
"
at rest.
THEAET. Exactly.
STR. And further, all who teach that things com-
bine at one time and separate at another, whether
infinite elements combine in unity and are derived
from unity or finite elements separate and then
unite, regardless of whether they say that these
changes take place successively or without intemip-
395
PLATO
Kara TTavra ravra Xeyoiev dv ov^ev, eiVep /ti^Se/xta
0EAI. 'Op^cSs-.
HE. "Eti tolvvv dv avTOL TrdvTCov KaraycXaarro-
rara fxerioiev
^
rov Xoyov ol firjSev icovres KOivoivia
TTadijfiaro? iripov ddrepov ttpoaayopeveLv
.
C 0EAI. ricDs-;
HE. To) re
"
elvai
"
ttov Trepl Trdvra dvayKa^ovrai
Xpy^aOat Kal rep
"
x^P'-S
"
xal rat
"
raiv dXXiov
"
^
Kal TO)
"
Kad^ avro
"
/cat /xvpioLs irepois, Sv
aKpareZs dvres e'ipyecrOaL Kal
firj
(rwdTrreiv iv tols
XoyoLs ovK dXXojv Seovrai rcvv e^eXey^ovrcjv, dXXd
TO Xeyojxevov oiKodev rov rroXepLLov Kal evavTico-
aopievov )(ovts, eWos' VTTO^deyyopevov woTrep tov
droTTOv YiVpvKXea Trepi^ipovres del TTOpevovraL.
D
0EAI. KofjuSi] Aeyeis" 6p,ot6v re Kal dXrjdes.
EE. Tt S', dv Trdvra aAAT^Aot? ecb/xev Svvafiiv
eT^etj/ 7TLK0iva)VLas
;
0EAI. Tovro p,v otos re Kdycb StaAueiv.
HE. Ha;?;
0EAI. "On KLVTjaLS re
^
avrrj TTavrdrraaLv larair^
nv Kal ardais av TrdXtv avrrj KivolrOy eiTrep eTTiyi-
yvoiad7]V ctt' aAAT^Aoiv.
HE. 'AAAa pbrjv rovro ye ttov rats jxeyiaraLs dvdy-
Kais dSvvarov, KLvrjaiv re taraadai KaL araatv
KLveladai;
EAi. Yldis yap ov;
HE. To rpirov Srj fxovov
Xolttov.
0EAI. Nat.
^
fierioLev^ fierioi/xev BTW.
^
Twj' AXKuv B
;
dWuv T.
s
re] ye BTW.
396
THE SOPHIST
tion, would be talking nonsense in all these doctrines,
if there is no intermingling.
THEAET. Quite right.
STR. Then, too, the very men who forbid us to
call anything by another name because it partici-
pates in the effect produced by another, would be
made most especially ridiculous by this doctrine.
THEAET. How SO ?
STR. Because they are obliged in speaking of any-
thing to use the expressions
"
to be,"
"
apart,"
"
from
the rest," "by itself," and countless others; they
are powerless to keep awav from them or avoid
working them into their discourse ; and therefore
there is no need of others to refute them, but, as
the saying goes, their enemy and future opponent
is of their own household whom they always carrj*
about with them as they go, giving forth speech
from within them, like the wonderful Eurycles.^
THEAET. That is a remarkably accurate illustration.
STR. But what if we ascribe to all things the
power of participation in one another
.''
THEAET. Even I can dispose of that assumption.
STR. How ?
THEAET. Because motion itself would be wholly
at rest, and rest in turn would itself be in motion,
if these two could be joined with one another.
STR. But surely this at least is most absolutely
impossible, that motion be at rest and rest be in
motion ?
THEAET. Of course.
STR. Then only the third possibility is left.
THEAET. Yes.
^
Eurycles wtis a ventriloquist and soothsayer of the
fifth century, c/. Aristophanes, Wasps, 1019.
397
PLATO
E
38. HE. Kat
firjv V yi ri rovrcov dvay-
Kotov, Tj TTavra t] fxrjSev
^
to, {.lev ediXeiv, to, he
firj
av{MfjLLyvvadai
.
0EAI. Ucos yap ov;
HE. Ka6 ixTjv TO. ye Svo dSwarov evpedr).
0EAI. Nat.^
HE. Has" dpa 6 ^onXofievos opOc^s aTTOKptveadaL
TO XoLTTOV TlOl' TpLCOV dljaeL.
0EAI. KojUiS^
fjiev ovv.
HE. "Ore S-q to. p,ev eOeXei tovto Spav, ra
8'
ov,
253
(^x^hov
olov rd ypafxpiara veTTOvdor^ dv eirj. koL
yap eKeivcov rd iiev dvapixooTeZ ttov rrpos dXXrjXa,
rd Se ^vvapiioTTei.
0EAI. Ylco?
8'
ov;
HE. Ta Se ye (j>o}vrjevTa hia<jiep6vTOi5 tow dXXcov
OLOV SeorjJbo? 8ta Travroiv Kex(J^py]Kev, ware avev rivos
avrwv dSvvarov dpp,6rreiv /cat rijjv dXKojv erepov
erepcp.
0EAI. Kat fjidXa ye.
HE. ria? ovv olSev oTToZa ottoLols Sward kolvo)-
velv, ^
rexvy]?
Set ro) p,eXXovri Spdv iKavaJg avrd;
0EAI. Texvrjs.
HE. nota?;
EAI. Trjs ypafifjLarLKTJs.
HE. Tt Se; Trepl rovs rcJbv o^ecov /cat ^apeoiv
B
(j>06yyovs dp^
ovx
ovrcos; 6
fiev rovs crvyKepavvv-
[xevovs re /cat
fir) rexvrjv excov
yiyvcoaKeiv jjLOvatKos,
6 Se
fjuT]
^vvtels dfxovaos:
EAI. Ovrcos.
^
evpedr]. vai Heindorf; evpedrjvai BT ; eiipeOrjvai.' vai W.
398
THE SOPHIST
STR. And certainly one of these three must be
true ; either all things will mingle with one another,
or none will do so, or some will and others will
not.
THEAET. Of course.
sTR. And certainly the first two were found to be
impossible.
THEAET. Yes.
STR. Then everybody who wishes to answer
correctly will adopt the remaining one of the three
possibilities.
THEAET. Precisely.
STR. Now since some things will commingle and
others will not, they are in much the same condition
as the letters of the alphabet ; for some of these do
not fit each other, and others do.
THEAET. Of course.
STR. And the vowels, to a greater degree than
the others, run through them all as a bond, so that
without one of the vowels the other letters cannot
be joined one to another.
THEAET. Certainly.
STR. Now does everybody know which letters can
join with which others ? Or does he who is to join
them properly have need of art
.''
THEAET. He has need of art.
STR. What art ?
THEAET. The art of grammar.
STR. And is not the same true in connexion with
high and low sounds ? Is not he who has the art to
know the sounds which mingle and those which do
not, musical, and he who does not know un-
musical }
THEAET. Yes.
399
PLATO
HE. Kat /cttTO, r(x>v aAAojv hrj
rex^'o^v
Kal drexvi'^ov
Toiavra evpjjaojjiev eVepa.
0EAI. IloiS S' ov;
HE. Ti
8';
evretSry Kal to, yevrj rrpos dXXrjXa Kara
ravrd [xi^ecos
^x^iv
(L^oXoyriKapiev, dp* ov
fier*
eTTiarripiT]? rivos dvayKalov Sia rcov Xoycov TTopeve-
adai Tov opOcos fieXXovra 8ei^iv iToia ttoLols
avficficovet tu>v yevcbv /cat irola dXXrjXa ov Sep^erai;
C
Kal St] Kal Sid iravrcov el avuexovr* drr* avr*
'^
icTTLV, ware avfxjjiLyvvadaL Sward elvai, Kal ttoXlv
iv rals Siaipiaeaiv, el SC oXatv erepa rrjs Siaipe-
aecos alria;
EAI. ITcy? ydp OVK eTncrriqiJirjs Set, /cat ax^Sov
ye lacos rrjs p-eyiar-qs
;
39-
HE. TiV ovv av 7Tpocrepovp,ev, co Seai-
riqre, raiirrjv;
7]
Trpos Aio? eXadofiev el? rrjv rcov
eXevdepoiV efXTreaovres e7Tiar7]fjirjv, Kal KLvSwevop^ev
^Tjrovvres rov uo^iarrjv Trporepov dvrjvprjKevai rov
^iXoao^ov
;
0EAI. licos Xeyeis;
D
EE. To Kard yevrj Staipeiadai Kal
fi-qre
ravrov
etSos erepov 'qyrjaaadat [x-qre erepov ov ravrov p.a>v
ov rrjs SLaXeKTLKrjs
(f)rjaoixev eTTcar'qfirjs
etvai;
0EAI. Nat, (f)-qaop,ev.
EE. OvKovv 6 ye rovro Swards Spdv jxiav Iheav
Std rroXXwv, evos eKaarov Keifxevov
x^P^S,
Trdvrr]
8iarerafjievr]v cKavcos SiaKiddverai, Kal rroXXas
irepas dXXTjXcov vtto [xids e^codev rrepiexop-evas
,
Kal piiav av St' oXoiV rroXXchv ev ivl ^wrjfifxevrjv,
/cat
^
(Twixovr' &tt' aUr Wagner
; crvp^x^'''''^-
'''o-^' BTW.
400
THE SOPHIST
STR. And we shall find similar conditions, then,
in all the other arts and processes which are devoid
of art ?
THEAET. Of course.
STR. Now since we have agreed that the classes
or genera also commingle with one another, or do
not commingle, in the same way, must not he possess
some science and proceed by the processes of reason
who is to show correctly which of the classes
harmonize with which, and which reject one another,
and also if he is to show whether there are some
elements extending through all and holding them
together so that they can mingle, and again, when
they separate, whether there are other universal
causes of separation ?
THEAET. Certainly he needs science, and perhaps
even the greatest of sciences.
STR. Then, Theaetetus, what name shall we give
to this science ? Or, by Zeus, have we unwittingly
stumbled upon the science that belongs to free men
and perhaps found the philosopher while we were
looking for the sophist
.'
THEAET. What do you mean }
STR. Shall we not say that the division of things
by classes and the avoidance of the belief that the
same class is another, or another the same, belongs
to the science of dialectic ?
THEAET. Yes, we shall.
STR. Then he who is able to do this has a clear
perception of one form or idea extending entirely
through many individuals each of which lies apart,
and of many forms differing from one another but
included in one greater form, and again of one form
evolved by the union of many wholes, and of many
401
PLATO
E TToAAas"
X^P^S"
'n-avrr] Stcopicr/xeva?* tovto S' ecrriv,
T KoivcoveZv CKaara Swarai Kal otttj
fX'q,
SiaKplvecv Kara yevos iiTLaTaadai,.
0EAI. UavraTTaaL
fiev
ovv.
HE. AAAa
fi-^v
TO ye StaAe/cri/cov ovk dXXco Sco-
aLs, COS iytpfjiai, ttXtjv toj KadapoJs re /cat St/caitos"
<^LXoaO<f)OVVTL.
0EAI. Ila)s yap av aAAa> Sotr^ rts;
HE. Tov /i.ei' St) <j)LX6ao<j>ov ev toiovtco tivI tottco
Kal vvv Kal eWira avevprjaopbev, iav ^rjTajfxev, ISelv
254
/xev ;)^aAe7roi' ivapycos Kal tovtov, erepov jxtjv
rpoTTOv rj T Tov ao(f>LaTov xaXeTTorrjs -q re tovtov.
0EAI. Uojs;
HE.
*0
/xev aTToSiSpdarKcov ei? ri^i' to> /xt^ ovtos
aKOTeivoTTjTa, TpcPij TrpoaaTTTOfievos avT-fjs, 8ta to
aKOTLv6v TOV TOTTOV KaTovoTJaai ')(a\eTt6s' rj yap;
0EAI. "Eot/cet'.
HE.
'0
Se ye ^tXoao^os, ttj tov ovtos del Sid
Xoycarfjicov TrpoaKeipbevos ISea, 8id to XapuTrpov av ttjs
XOJpas ovSafiws
evTTeTrjs 6(f)drjvai' Td ydp T-fjs tcx)v
B
TToAAcDv
4'^XV^
op^fiaTa Kaprepelv Trpos to delov
d<f>-
opdJVTa dSvvaTa.
0EAI. Kai Tttura eiKos
ovx
'^ttov eKeivcuv ovtcos
HE. OvKovv irepl
fiev
tovtov Kal Taya eTTiaKeifjo

fjbeda aa(f>eaTepov, dv en ^ovXop^evois rjjXLV rj' Trepi
Se TOV (jo<j>i(jTOV 7TOV SrjXov
COS OVK dveTeoVy Trpiv dv
LKOvuiS avTov deacrcofieda.
402
THE SOPHIST
forms entirely apart and separate. This is the
knowledge and ability to distinguish by classes how
individual things can or cannot be associated with one
another.
THEAET. Certainly it is.
STR. But you surely, I suppose, will not grant the
art of dialectic to any but the man who pursues
philosophy in purity and righteousness.
THEAET. How could it be granted to anyone else ?
STR. Then it is in some region like this that we
shall always, both now and hereafter, discover the
philosopher, if we look for him ; he also is hard to
see clearly, but the difficulty is not the same in his
case and that of the sophist.
THEAET. How do they differ ?
STR. The sophist runs away into the darkness
of not-being, feeling his way in it by practice,^ and
is hard to discern on account of the darkness of
the place. Don't you think so ?
THEAET. It seems likely.
STR. But the philosopher, always devoting himself
through reason to the idea of being, is also very
difficult to see on account of the brilliant light of the
place ; for the eyes of the soul of the multitude are
not strong enough to endure the sight of the divine.
THEAET. This also seems no less true than what
you said about the sophist.
STR. Now we will make more accurate investiga-
tions about the philosopher hereafter, if we still
care to do so ; but as to the sophist, it is clear that
we must not relax our efforts until we have a satis-
factor}' view of him.
*
By practice, i.e., by empirical knowledge as opposed to
reason.
403
I
PLATO
0EAI. KaAo)? eiTTes.
40. HE. "Or' ovv S^ ra jxev rijxZv rcov yevcbv cLfio-
Xoyqrat KOLvcovelv iOeXeiv dXXrjXois, ra Se
fi-q,
/cat
ra jxev ctt oAiyov, ra o ern TToAAa, ra oe /cai ota
C TTovTixyv ovhkv KCoXveiv tols Tracrt KeKOLVo)vt]KivaL,
TO Srj
fiera tovto ^vveTTLaTTWfxeda tco Xoyco T'^Se
(jKOTTOVVTes
,
firj
rrepl Trdvriov rojv elScov, tva
firj
TapaTTOJixeda iv ttoXXols, dXXd TrpoeAo/ievot tcov
IxeyioTOiv Xeyojxevcuv drra, TTpcorov ^ikv TTola
e/cacrra iartv, eireLra Koivojvias dXXriXoiv ttcos
ex^t
Svvdixeojs, Lva to t ov /cat /xtj ov el [Mrj Trdarj
aa(f>ii]veia Swdfieda Xa^elv, dXX ovv Xoyov ye
evSeels ixrjHev ytyvcofieOa irepl avTcov, Ka6* oaov 6
TpoTTog ivSexeTai Trjg vvv (TKe^ecos, edv dpa rjpLLV tttj
D 7TapLKd6r)
^
TO
fxrj
ov Xeyovcnv d)s
eariv ovTOis
p-yj
ov ddcpOLs dnaXXdrTeiv.
0EAI. OvKovv
XPV-
EE. Meyterra
fxrjv
tcov yev<Jov, d vvv Brj
Sifjuev,
TO T OV avTO /cat ardais /cat Kivrjais.
0EAI. UoXv ye.
HE. Kat p.r]v TO) ye Svo
(f}afjbev
avrolv d/it/cro)
TTpos dXXriXcxi.
0EAI. Ti(f)68pa
ye.
HE. To Se ye ov puKTOv dficfioiv
eoTov yap
dflifxi)
TTOV.
0EAI. ITcu?
8'
ov;
HE. Tpta
87)
yiyverai TavTa.
0EAI. Tt p^ijv;
HE. OvKovv avTOJV eKaarov tolv p,ev Svoiv erepov
eoTLV, avTO
8'
eavrio TavTov.
^
irapei.K6.dri Boeckh
;
irapeiKaffOy BT.
404
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. You are right.
STR. Since, therefore, we are agreed that some of
the classes will mingle with one another, and others
^\-ill not, and some will mingle with few and others
with many, and that there is nothing to hinder some
from mingling universally -with all, let us next
proceed with our discussion by investigating, not all
the forms or ideas, lest we become confused among
so many, but some only, selecting them from those
that are considered the most important ; let us first
consider their several natures, then what their power
of mingling A^ith one another is, and so, if we cannot
grasp being and not-being with perfect clearness,
we shall at any rate not fail to reason fully about
them, so far as the method of our present inquiry
permits. Let us in this way see whether it is,
after all, {lermitted us to say that not-being really
is, although not being, and yet come off unscathed.
THEAET. Yes ; that is the proper thing for us
to do.
STR. The most important, surely, of the classes or
genera are those which we just mentioned ; being
itself and rest and motion.
THEAET. Yes, by far.
STR. And further, two of them, we say, cannot
mingle with each other.
THEAET. Decidedly not.
STR. But being can mingle with both of them,
for they both are.
THEAET. Of course.
STR. Then these prove to be three.
THEAET. To be sure.
STR. Each of them is, then, other than the remain-
ing two, but the same as itself.
VOL. II 2d 405
PLATO
E 0EAI. Ovrcos.
EE. Tt 7TOT av I'vv ovrco'5
elpiJKafxev
ro re ravrov
Kal ddrepov ; irorepa Svo yevrj rwe avro),^ rcov
fjiev
rpiaJv dXXio, ^vpLUiyvvpevo} /x-qv Klvol<: e^ dvdyKTjs
aet, KiiL Trepl rrevTe dAA' ov rrepl rpuov at? ovrojv
avTcx)v aKenreov,
^
to re ravroi' rovro Kal ddrepov
255
CO? eKeivajv rt Trpoaciyopevoures Xavdavofiev rj[.i,ds
avToi'is;
0EAI. "IcrctJ?.
HE. 'AAA' ov TL jxrjv KLvrjals ye /cat ardais ov6^
erepov ovre ravrov iari.
0EAI. Ua)s;
EE. "Ornrep dv KOivfj
TrpocreiTTCop^ev KLvrjOLv Kal
crrdaiv, rovro ovSerepov avrolv otov re elvai.
0EAI. Tt S-q;
HE. Is.LvrjCTL'i re arrjaerai Kal ardcng av KLvrjOt]-
aeraL' rrepl yap
diJi(f)6repa
darepov oTTorepovovv
yiyvoiievov avrolv dvayKdaei p^era^dWeiv av dd-
repov cttI rovvavriov rrjs avrov (fivcretos, are
B P'ra(Jxov
rov evavriov.
0EAI. Ko/xtST^ ye.
HE. y[ere)(^erov [irjv dp.(j)Co ravrov Kal darepov.
0EAI. Nat.
HE. M;; roivvv Xeya)fjt,ev
KLvrjaiv
y'
ett'at ravrov
rj darepov, }Jir]S' av araoLV.
EAI. yir] ydp.
HE. 'AAA' dpa TO ov Kal ro ra.vr6v cos ev ri 8ta-
vorjreov rjP'tv
;
0EAI. "\acos.
HE. 'AAA' el ro ov Kal ro ravrov ^T^Set" Sid(f)opov
arfp^aiverov, Kivrjatv av rrdXtv /cat ardaiv dfKporepa
^
aiird}] avTou B
;
avrov T.
406
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. Yes.
STR. But what do we mean by these words,
"
the
same " and
"
other," which we have just used ?
Are they two new classes, different from the other
three, but always of necessity mingled with them,
and must we conduct our inquiry on the assumption
that there are five classes, not three, or are we un-
consciously speaking of one of those three when we
say
"
the same
"
or
*'
other
"
?
THEAET. Perhaps.
STR. But certainly motion and rest are neither
other nor the same.
THEAET. How so }
STR. Whatever term we apply to rest and motion
in common cannot be either of those two.
THEAET. Why not }
STR. Because motion would be at rest and rest
would be in motion ; in respect of both, for which-
ever of the two became "other" would force the
other to change its nature into that of its opposite,
since it would participate in its opposite.
THEAET. Exactly so.
STR. Both certainly partake of the same and the
other.
^
THEAET. Yes.
STR. Then we must not say that motion, or rest
either, is the same or other.
THEAET. No.
STR. But should we conceive of
"
being
"
and
"
the
same
"
as one ?
THEAET. Perhaps.
STR. But if
"
being
"
and
"
the same
"
have no
difference of meaning, then when we go on and say
^
i.e., sameness and difference can be predicated of both.
407
PLATO
etv'at Xeyovres
dfx(f)6rpa
ovrois aura ravTov cos
C
ovra TTpocrepovfiev.
0EAI. 'AAAa
nr]i>
TOVTo ye dSvuaTov.
HE. ASvvarov dpa Tavrov /cat ro ov ev etvai.
0EAI. Sp^eSw.
EE. Teraprov Sr] TTpos rols rpialv e'iheai
^
ro
ravrov ridajfxeu;
GEAI. Ildvv
fxev
ovv.
HE. TtSe; TO Odrepov dparjUivXeKTeovTTCfJLTTTOv;
7]
TOVTO /cat TO ov d)s Su' ttTTa ovo/jLara
i(f)^
ivl yeuet
hiavoeZadai heZ;
0EAI. Ta;^' dv.
HE. 'AAA' otual ae
avyx<^opLV
tcov ovtcuv Ta f-iev
avrd KaO^ avTa, rd Se irpos oAAa
^
aet Xiyeadai.
0EAI. Tt
8'
ov;
jy
HE. To
'
e.Tepov del Trpos erepov
"^
ydp;
EAI. Oyrcos".
HE. Oy/c dv, et ye ro 6V /cat to ddrepov /jltj
TrdfiTToXv SLe(f>pT'qv' dAA' eliTep ddrepov
dfj.(f>OLv
p,eTiX
TOLV elholv oiairep to dv, ^v dv ttotc tl /cat
Td)v Tpojv eTepov ov Trpos eTCpov vvv Se dTcxvojs
T^/xu', OTiTTep dv CTpov Tj , (TV/ji^^rjKv
^
dvdyKv^s
CTepov TOVTO OTTcp ioTiv etvai
.
0EAI. Aeyet? KaddTrep e^et.
HE. IleijLTTTOV Srj ttjv darepov j)vaLV XeKreov iv
E
Tots etSeotv ovaav, iv ots Trpoaipovfieda.
0EAI. Nat.
HE. Kat Sta TrdvTCJV ye uvttjv avTcov cfy'qcrofiev
etvai SieXrjXvdvLav ev eKaarov ydp erepov elvai
^
ddecTL BT ;
e'idtffLy eWos W.
2
SXXa TW
;
&\\r]\a B.
408
THE SOPHIST
that both rest and motion are, we shall be saying that
they are both the same, since they are.
THEAET. But surely that is impossible.
STR. Then it is impossible for being and the same
to be one.
THEAET. Pretty nearly.
STR. So we shall consider
"
the same " a fourth
class in addition to the other three ?
THEAET. Certainly.
STR. Then shall we call
"
the other
"
a fifth class ?
Or must we conceive of this and
"
being " as two
names for one class ?
THEAET. May be.
STR. But I fancy you admit that among the
entities some are always conceived as absolute, and
some as relative.
THEAET. Of course.
STR. And other is always relative to other, is it
not?
THEAET. Yes.
STR. It would not be so, if being and the other
were not utterly diflferent. If the other, like being,
partook of both absolute and relative existence, there
would be also among the others that exist another
not in relation to any other ; but as it is, we find
that whatever is other is just what it is through com-
pulsion of some other.
THEAET. The facts are as you say.
STR. Then we must place the nature of
"
the
other " as a fifth among the classes in which we
select our examples.
THEAET. Yes.
STR. And we shall say that it permeates them all
;
for each of them is other than the rest, not by reason
409
PLATO
Tcov aXkojv ov Sia rr^v avrov
(f)vaiv, dXXa Std to
fj,eT)(a' rrjs ISeag t^? Sarepov.
0EAI, Ko/Zt8^
fJLei' ovv.
41. HE. *DSe St)
Xeycofiev i-nl rcbv ttcvtc /ca^'
ei-' dvaXa[.L^dvovTs
.
0EAI. Ila)?;
HE. npcDroi'
fxev KLvrjcnv, cos ecrri TravTairacnv
erepov ardcrews. rj ttcos Xeycojjiev;
0EAI. OvTCOS.
HE. Ou ardais dp* iariv.
eAl. OuSa/xcD?.
256
HE. "Ecrri Se ye Sta ro ^erep^eiv tou op'to?.
eEAi. "EcTTii',
HE. AvOls St) TTaXiv r^
Kivriais erepov ravTov eariv.
0EAI. 2;!^eSdt'.
HE. Oi) Tayrov dpa eariv.
eAi. Oi5 ya/o ovv.
HE. 'AAAa /xi)!^ auTTy
y'
^i/ rayroi' Std to [xerexeiv
aS Trdvr' avrov.
0EAI. Kat fxdXa.
HE. Ti)v KcvTjaLU
87)
rauTot' re efvat K:at
fxrj
ravrov
ofjioXoyyjTeov /cat oy Svaxepavreov. ov yap orav
eiTTOifiev
avrrjv ravrov /cat
fir]
ravrov, ofioiajg
elp-qKaixev, dAA' orrorav /xev ravrov, Std rr)v jxede^iv
B ravrov irpo? eavrrjv ovroj
Xeyofxev^ orav Se /xt)
rauToi', Std rrjv KOivoiviav av darepov, St' tjv
d7TO)(^cjipit,oixvr] ravrov yeyovev ovk eKelvo dAA'
erepov, coare dp6a)<; av Xeyerat rrdXiv or) ravrov.
0EAI. Haw p,ev ovv.
HE. OvKOvv Kav et
777^ fxereXdpL^avev avrrj
^
\eyofiev W
;
Xeyw/mev BT.
410
THE SOPHIST
of its own nature, but because it partakes of the idea
of the other.
THEAET. Exactly.
STR. Let us now state our conclusions, taking up
the five classes one at a time.
THEAET. How ?
STR. Take motion first ; we say that it is entirely
other than rest, do we not ?
THEAET. We do.
STR. Then it is not rest.
THEAET. Not at all.
STR. But it exists, by reason of its participation in
being.
THEAET. Yes, it exists.
STR. Now motion again is other than the same.
THEAET. You're about right.
STR. Therefore it is not the same.
THEAET. No, it is not.
STR. But yet we found it was the same, because
all things partake of the same.
THEAET. Certainly.
STR. Then we must admit that motion is the same
and is not the same, and we must not be disturbed
thereby ; for when we say it is the same and not
the same, we do not use the words alike. ^Vhen
we call it the same, we do so because it partakes
of the same in relation to itself, and when we
call it not the same, we do so on account of its
participation in the other, by which it is separated
from the same and becomes not that but other,
so that it is correctly spoken of in turn as not the
same.
THEAET. Yes, certainly.
STR. Then even if absolute motion partook in
411
PLATO
KLVTjaLS araaecos, ovhkv av aroirov rjv ardcnixov
avrrjv irpoaayopeveiv
;
0EAI. ^OpdoTard ye, etVep tcov yevcov crvyx(J^~
prjaofjueda rd
fxev
dXXijXois edeXeiv piiyvvadai, ra
C
EE. Kat
fjLTjv
inL ye rrjv tovtov irporepov airo-
Sei^LV r) Tcov vvv d(f>i,K6[xeda, eXeyxovres d)S
kari
Kara <j>vaLV Tavrrj.
0EAI. Hois yap ov;
HE. Aeyco/Jiev S-q ttoXlv -q Kivqais eariv erepov
Tov erepov, Kaddrrep ravrov re ^v dXXo Kai rrjs
ardaecog;
0EAI. ^AvayKaiov.
EE.
Ovx
erepov dp* eari tttj /cat erepov Kara rov
vvv Srj Xoyov.
0EAI. 'AX-qdrj.
EE. Ti ovv St) ro /xerd rovro; dp av
^
rcov
fxev
rpidjv erepov avrrjv (jirjaofxev etvai, rod Se reraprov
pbTj
(f)a>iJiv,
ojxoXoyrjaavres avrd elvai irevre, rrepi
D
c5v /cat ev ols 7Tpovdef.i,eda cr/coTreiv;
EAi. KaiTTcos; dSvvarov yap avyx^opeiv
eXarrco
TOV dpidf-Lov rov vvv Brj (f>avevros.
EE. 'ASecS? apa rrjV KLvrjaiv erepov elvai rod
ovros hiapiaxdfievoL
Xeycojxev;
0EAI. ^ASeearara fxev
ovv.
EE. OvKOVV Stj aa(f>CL)S
r} KLvrjais ovrcos ovk ov
iarL Kat ov, eTreiTrep rov ovros fierexei;
0EAI. Sa^cCTTara ye.
EE. "Fuariv dpa e^ dvdyKTjs ro jxtj ov irn re klvtj-
aecos
etvai Kal Kara Trdvra rd yevrj. Kara Travra
E
yap Tj darepov
(f)vaLS
erepov dvepya^ofxevri
rov
'
aS Heindorf ; ov BT.
412
THE SOPHIST
any way of rest, it would not be absurd to say it was
at rest ?
THEAET. It would be perfectly right, if we are
to admit that some of the classes will mingle with
one another, and others will not.
STR. And surely we demonstrated that before we
took up our present points
;
we proved that it was
according to nature.^
THEAET. Yes, of coursc.
STR. Then let us recapitulate : Motion is other
than the other, just as we found it to be other than
the same and than rest. Is that tioie ?
THEAET. Inevitably.
STR. Then it is in a sense not other and also other,
according to our present reasoning.
THEAET. True.
STR. Now how about the next point ? Shall we
say next that motion is other than the three, but not
other than the fourth,that is, if we have agreed
that the classes about which and within which we
undertook to carry on our inquiry are five in number ?
THEAET. How Can we say that ? For we cannot
admit that the number is less than was shown just now.
STR. Then we may fearlessly persist in contending
that motion is other than being ?
THEAET. Yes, most fearlessly.
STR. It is clear, then, that motion really is not,
and also that it is, since it partakes of being }
THEAET. That is perfectly clear.
STR. In relation to motion, then, not-being is.
That is inevitable. And this extends to all the
classes ; for in all of them the nature of other so
operates as to make each one other than being, and
1
See 251 E ff.
413
PLATO
ouTos Kaarov ovk ov ttolcl, kol ^v/jLTravra Brj /card
ravra ovrats ovk ovra opdcos ipovfiev, /cat TrdXiv,
OTL
fierex^i rod ovro^, elvai re /cat ovra.
0EAI. Kti/SyveJet.
HE. Ilept Kaarov dpa rcuv elSoJv ttoXv jxev iart
ro ov, aTTCLpov Se TTXrjdeL ro pbrj 6v.
0EAI. "KoiKGV.
257 HE. OvKovv /cat to ov avro rcov aAAoiv erepov
etvat XcKreov.
EAI. 'AvdyK'q.
HE. Kat ro ov dp
rip,lv,
oaarrep iari rd dXXa,
Kara roaavra ovk eartv e/ceiva yap ovk ov ev
fjiev
avro iarLV, dnepavra Se rov dpidpov TaXXa
ovk eariv av.
0EAI. 2;)(eSov ovrco'S.
HE. OvKOvv 8rj /cat ravra ov hvax^po-vriov, eTret-
rrep
ex^L
Koivcoviav dXXrjXoig rj rcbv yevwv ^vols. et
Se Tts" raura /xt)
avyxiopei, Treiaas rjixcJbv
rovf;
efiTTpoadev Xoyovs ovrco TTeiderco rd [xerd ravra.
0EAI. At/catorara eXprjKa^.
B HE. "ISco^ev'
^
817
/cat roSe.
0EAI. To TTOLOV;
HE. 'OTTorav TO /ii^ w Xeytopiev, co? eoiKev, ovk
ivavriov ri Xiyop^ev rov ovrog, dXX erepov /jlovov.
EAI. ncDs-;
^
idoj/Mev W; eldQ/j-ep B
;
elSojfiev T.
^
Being is many, for each and every thing in all the
classes is ; but not-being is infinite, for not only is it true
that every thing in each of the classes is not, but not-being
extends also to all conceptions which do not and cannot
have any reality.
414
THE SOPHIST
therefore not-being. So we may^ from this point of
view, rightly say of all of them alike that they are
not ; and again, since they partake of being, that
they are and have being.
THEAET. Yes, I suppose so.
STR. And so, in relation to each of the classes,
being is many, and not-being is infinite in number.^
THEAET. So it seems.
STR. Then being itself must also be said to be
other than all other things.
THEAET. Yes, it must.
STR. And we conclude that whatever the number
of other things is, just that is the number of the
things in relation to which being is not ; for not
being those things, it is itself one, and again, those
other things are not unlimited in number.
THEAET. That is not far from the truth.
STR. Then we must not be disturbed by this either,
since by their nature the classes have participation
in one another. But if anyone refuses to accept our
present results, let him reckon with our previous
arguments and then proceed to reckon with the
next step.2
THEAET. That is very fair.
STR. Then here is a point to consider.
THEAET. What is it ?
STR. When we say not-being, we speak, I think,
not of something that is the opposite of being, but
only of something different.
THEAET. What do you mean ?
^
i.e., if he will not accept our proof that being is not,
etc. , he must disprove our arguments respecting the partici-
Eation
of ideas in one another, and then proceed to draw
is inference.
415
PLATO
EE. Olov OTav eiTTOjjU.et' ti
firj fxeya,
rore fidXXov
TL aoL
(fyxLuofieda ro crfXLKpov
7)
to lctov StjXovv rw
p'qfj.art;
0EAI. Kat TTOJS";
HE. OvK dp\ ivavTLOV orav aTro^acL's XeyrjraL
ar)fiaivLVj avyxioprjaojjieda, roaovrov 8e puovov, otl
TCOV dXXcOV TL p,7]VVL TO /JLTj /Cttt TO ov 7r/30Ti^e/xeva
C
TcDv eTTLOVTCov ovofxaTCDV
,
fiaXXov Be tcov 77payp.d-
TU)V TTcpl arr' dv KcrjTat, Ta iin^deyyopueva vaTepov
TTJs
d7TO(f)daco? 6u6p.aTa.
0EAI. TlavTaTraat p.kv odv.
42. HE. TdSe Se SLavor]ddjp,V, el Kal crol ^vv-
SoKcZ.
0EAI. To TTOXOV;
EE. *H OaTcpov pLoi
(f)vats
^atVerai KaTaKCKep-
p,aTLcr6at, Kaddirep eTnoT'qpr].
0EAI. Ild)s;
EE. Mta piev ioTL 7TOV Kal eKeiviq,^ to S ctti toj
yi,yv6p,evov pLepos avTrjs eKaoTOV d<f>opLaQev iira)-
D
vvpbiav
Lax^L
TLvd eavTrjs ISiav Sto TroAAai Te^vai
t' elcrl
^
Xeyopicvai /cat eTrtoTTyjuai.
0EAI. Udvv pLV odv.
EE. OvKOVv Kal Ta ttjs daTcpov
<f)V(TU)s
pLopta
pLids ovarjs TavTov neTTOvde tovto.
0EAI.
Tax
^*'' ^^^
^"^V ^V
^
Xiycopbev.
EE. "EoTt TCp KoXd) Ti daTcpov pLopiov aVTlTldi'^
pievov
;
0EAI. "EoTlV.
EE. Tout' ovv dviovvfxov ipovp,v
17
tlv^
^X^\
eiTOivvpiav
;
^
iKeivT} W
;
eKeivrj BT.
"^
ri eiai W
;
reiai T ; tktiv B.j
'
dXX' Sttt) Stj W
;
dX\6 ttt; T
;
ftXXo tt^ B.
416
THE SOPHIST
STR. For instance, when we speak of a thing as
not great, do we seem to you to mean by the
expression what is small any more than what is of
middle size ?
THEAET. No, of coursc not.
STR. Then when we are told that the negative
signifies the opposite, we shall not admit it ; we shall
admit only that the particle
"
not "
^
indicates some-
thing different from the words to which it is prefixed,
or rather from the things denoted by the words that
follow the negative.
THEAET. Certainly.
STR. Let us consider another point and see if you
agree with me.
THEAET. What is it?
STR. It seems to me that the nature of the other
is all cut up into little bits, like knowledge.
THEAET. What do you mean?
STR. Knowledge, like other, is one, but each
separate part of it which applies to some particular
subject has a name of its own
;
hence there are many
arts, as they are called, and kinds of knowledge,
or sciences.
THEAET. Yes, certainly.
STR. And the same is true, by their nature, of the
parts of the other, though it also is one concept.
THEAET. Perhaps ; but let us discuss the matter
and see how it comes about.
STR. Is there a part of the other which is opposed
to the beautiful ?
THEAET. There is.
STR. Shall we say that this is nameless or that it
has a name ?
^
The two particles ov and tirj in Greek.
417
PLATO
EAi.
"jXov
o yap
fjLTj
KaXov eKaaroTC <^dey-
yofieda, rovro ovk dXXov rtvos erepov iartv rj rrjs
rod KoKov <f)vaecos.
HE.
"101
vvv ToSe
fjioi Xeye.
E
EAI. To TTolov;
HE. "AAAo Tt Tix>v ovTOiv TLVos v6s ydvovs
''
achopiadev /cat Trpos ri tcov ovtcov av ttoXlv avriredkv
ovToj ^vjj.^^7]Kv eluai
^
TO /X17 KoXov;
EAI. Ot'TCDS'.
HE. "Ovros Srj 7Tp6<; ov
^
avrideats,
(Ls
eot/c',
elval Ti?
*
avfx^aCvei ro purj KaXov.
EAI. ^OpOorara.
HE. Tt ovv; Kara tovtov rov Xoyov dpa fxdXXov
liev
TO KaXov rjfilv eoTi tcov ovtcdv,
tJttov he to
fir)
KaXov;
EAI. OvSev.
258
HE. 'OfMOLOJS
dpa to p,r) pbcya /cat to
fidya
avTO
etvat XcKTCov;
EAI. *0/xota)?.
HE. OvKovv /cat TO [jLYj St/caiov tco St/caioj /caro,
rauTo. BeTeov Trpos to firjSdv ti fidXXov elvai ddrepov
darepov;
EAI. Tt
fX'qv;
HE. Kat TaAAa Sr) Tainj] Xe^ofxev, ineLTTep rj
darepov (f)vaLS ecfidvrj
rojv ovrcov ovaa, eKeivrjs Be
ovarjs dvdyKT] Srj /cat to, /xopta avrrjs /xr^Sevoj '^rrov
ovra ridevai,.
EAI. ricDs- yap ov;
B HE. OvKovv, d)s
eoiKev, rj rrjs darepov fiopLOV
^vaeojs /cat ttjs rov ovros Trpos dXXrjXa dvri-
1
ivbs yivovs T
;
yivovs B.
2
^vfipipr]Kv elvai Stephanus
;
^vfjL^eprjK^vai BT.
418
THE SOPHIST
THEAET. That it has one ; for that which in each
case we call not-beautiful is surely the other of the
nature of the beautiful and of notiiing else.
sTK. Now, then, tell me something more.
THEAET. Wiiat ?
STR. Does it not result from this that the not-
beautiful is a distinct part of some one class of being
and also, again, opposed to some class of being ?
THEAET. Yes.
STR. Then, apparently, it follows that the not-
beautiful is a contrast of being with being.
THEAET. Quite right.
STR. Can we, then, in that case, say that the
beautiful is more and the not-beautiful less a part
of being ?
THEAET. Not at all.
STR. Hence the not-great must be said to be no
less truly than the great ?
THEAET. No less truly.
STR. And so we must recognize the same relation
between the just and the not-just, in so far as neither
has any more being than the other ?
THEAET. Of course.
STR. And we shall, then, say the same of other
things, since the nature of the other is proved to
possess real being ; and if it has being, we must
necessarily ascribe being in no less degree to its
parts also.
THEAET. Of course.
STR. Then, as it seems, the opposition of the
nature of a part of the other, and of the nature of
being, when they are opposed to one another, is no
3
oj' D
;
ax BT.
*
ris Apelt ; tl BT.
419
PLATO
KeLfidvcov avTideoLS ovSev -^ttov, el dlfjus L7Tlv,
avTov Tov ovTos ovaia eariv, ovk ivavriov KLva)
arr)iJLaLVOv(ja, dXXa toctovtov fjiovov, erepov eKeivov.
0EAI. J!ia(f)GraTd ye.
EE. TiV ovv avTTjv TTpoaeincofJiev
;
0EAI. AijXov on TO
ixTj
6v, o Sto. tov ao(f)(,aTr)V
i^TjTOVjJLev, avTO earn rovro.
HE. Horepov ovv, axnrep etTres, eariv ovhevos
rcov d^cov ovatas iXXeiTTop^evov, /cat Set dappovvTa
rjBr] Xeyetv on to /xry 6V ^e^aicos ioTi rriv avrov
C (j)vaiv e)(OV, wcrnep ro jxeya -qv p.eya /cat ro KaXov
^v KaXov /cat to jxt]
fieya
p,7j
/.leya
^
/cat to [xt] KaXov
fXT)
KaXov,^ OVTO) 8e /cat to
fxr]
ov /caTO, TauTov -^v
T /cat eWi jU.T7 6v, ivdptOfiov twv ttoXXcov ovtcov
clSos v; rj Tiva ctl irpos avTO, c5 BeatVi^Te, a-
TTiCTTiav exopiev;
0EAI. OvSepiiav.
43-
HE. Otcr^' oi/t' oTt HappbeviSr) pLaKpoTcptos
TTJg
aTTOpprjaeois rjTrtcrTTJKapiev
;
0EAI. Tt S17;
HE. UXetov rj *klvos aTretTre aKoneiv, 'qpicts ets"
TO TTpoadev ert ^7)T7]aavTs aTTeSet^apiev avTcu.
0EAI. n<Ss;
D EE. "OTt O jUef 7TOV
<f)7]atv,
ov yap
firj
ttotg tovto SapLjj,^ elvai pirj iovTa,^
aAAa av TrjaS^
dcf)^
oSou 8tci70-tos'
^
etpye voqpba.
0EAI. Aeyet yo/) out' ovtojs.
^
fX7) ixiya add. Boeckh.
2
/i7/ KaXiv add. Boeckh.
'
ToOro 5a,u^ Siraplicius
;
tovt ovda/iy BT.
*
^6^Ta Aristot. ; Sjra BT.
s
di^ffioi BT (cf. 23T a).
420
THE SOPHIST
less truly existence than is being itself, if it is not
wrong for me to say so, for it signifies not the
opposite of being, but only the other of being, and
nothing more.
THEAET. That is perfectly clear.
STR. Then what shall we call this ?
THEAET. Evidently this is precisely not-being,
which we were looking for because of the sophist.
STR. And is this, as you were saying, as fully
endowed with being as anything else, and shall we
henceforth say with confidence that not-being has
an assured existence and a nature of its own ? Just
as we found that the great was great and the beautiful
was beautiful, the not- great was not-great and the
not-beautiful was not-beautiful, shall we in the same
way say that not-being was and is not-being, to be
counted as one class among the many classes of
being ? Or have we, Theaetetus, any remaining
distrust about the matter ?
THEAET. None whatever.
STR. Do you observe, then, that we have gone
farther in our distrust of Parmenides than the limit
set by his prohibition ?
THEAET. What do you mean ?
STR. We have proceeded farther in our investiga-
tion and have shown him more than that which he
forbade us to examine.
THEAET. How so ?
STR.
Because he says somewhere
^
:
Never shall this thought prevail, that not-being is
;
Nay, keep your mind from this path of investigation.
THEAET.
Yes, that is what he says.
^
Parmenides, 52 f., ed. Mullach.
VOL, II 2 E 421
PLATO
HE. H/^et? Se ye ov fiovov c5s" can to.
fx-fj
ovra
aTreSei^a/xei', aAAa /cat to elSos o Tvyxo-vei ov rov
fjbT)
ovros (XTTecbrjvdfieda' t7]v yap daripov
(f)V(nv
drroSel^avres ovadv re /cat KaTaKeKepfiaricrfxevrjV
E 771 TTavra rd ovra Trpds dXXrjXa, to irpos to ov
eKaoTOV
^
fxopLOV avTrjs dvTLTidejx^vov
eToAfXTJaafiev
elTTelv d)S avTO tovto ccttlv ovtcos to pirj ov.
0EAI. Kat TTavTdTTaai ye, c5 ^eve, aXr]decrTaTd
fXOl
BoKOV[jLV Lpr)KVaL.
HE. Mtj tolvvv
r]ixds
c'lttiq tls otl TOVvavTLOV tov
ovTOS TO
fiTj
ou dTTO^aivofxevoi ToXjxcbpev Xeyeiv cvs
eaTLV. rj/xel? yap irepl jj.kv euavTiov tlvos avTco
;\;atpetv TraAai Xeyo^cv, etT* ccttlv etTe
ix-q,
Xoyov
259 exov
rj /cat TravTdiraaiv dXoyov o Se vvv elprjKaixev
elvai TO
fxrj
ov, tj TTeiadTO) tls
(1)s
ov /caAai? Xeyofxev
iXey^as,
^
fxexpt-TTep
dv dBvvaTfj, XcKTeov /cat eKCLVco
Kadd.TTep rjiJLis
Xeyo/xev, otl o-i'/x/xtyvuTat tc dXX-q-
Aot? TO. yevq /cat to t ov /cat ddTepov 8ta rravTCov
Kal St' dXXrjXcov SieXrjXvdoTa to /xev CTepov fxeTaaxov
tov ovto^ eoTL fiev
Sta TavTTjV t^v /xede^iv, ov p,rjV
eKcivo ye ov ueTeaxev dXX' eTcpov, eTepov Se tou
OVTOS ov ecTTL aa(f}GTaTa i^ dvdyKYjs elvai
fxrj
ov
B TO Se ov av daTepov p,TeiXrj(^6g erepov tcov dXXcjv
dv LT] yevojv, eTepov S' eKeivcov dnavTcov ou ovk
eoTLV eKacTTOV avTcbv ovSe ^vuTravTa Ta a'AA.a vrX-qv
avTO, cooTe to ov dvaixrf>ia^7)Ti]Ta}s av p,vpia Ittl
/jLvpioLS ovk errTL, /cat TCiAAa hr] Kad eKaaTov ovtco
/cat ^vjJiTravTa TToXXaxfj
p-ev eoTij TToXXaxfj
S' ovk
eCTTLV.
0EAI. *AX7]97j.
1
^KaffTov Siraplicius
;
eKdarov BT.
4-22
THE SOPHIST
sTR. But we have not only pointed out that things
which are not exist, but we have even shown what
the form or class of not-being is
;
for we have pointed
out that the nature of the other exists and is distri-
buted in small bits throughout all existing things in
their relations to one another, and we have ventured
to say that each part of the other which is contrasted
with being, really is exactly not-being.
THEAET. And certainly, Stranger, I think that what
we have said is perfectly true.
STR. Then let not anyone assert that we declare
that not-being is the opposite of being, and hence are
so rash as to say that not-being exists. For we long
ago gave up speaking of any opposite of being,
whether it exists or not and is capable or totally
incapable of definition. But as for our present
definition of not-being, a man must either refute
us and show that we are wrong, or, so long as he
cannot do that, he too must say, as we do, that the
classes mingle with one another, and being and the
other permeate all things, including each other, and
the other, since it participates in being, is, by reason
of this participation, yet is not that in which it
participates, but other, and since it is other than
being, must inevitably be not-being. But being, in
turn, participates in the other and is therefore other
than the rest of the classes, and since it is other than
all of them, it is not each one of them or all the
rest, but only itself; there is therefore no doubt
that there are thousands and thousands of things
which being is not, and just so all other things, both
individually and collectively, in many relations are,
and in many are not.
THEAET. True.
423
PLATO
HE. Kat rauTais"
8)7
rats' evavrtdiaeaiv eiT olttl-
areZ tls, aK^Trreov avrco /cat XeKreov ^eXri-ou ri twv
C vvv elpTqiieviov etre ms tl ^aXeTTOV Kara.vevoriKuj'S
Xctipet,
Tore
iikv inl darepa rore
8'
7tI darepa rovs
Aoyous* cXkcdv, ovk d^ia noXXrjs aTTOvSrjs icnrovSaKev,
cis* 01 vvv Aoyot (jtaai. tovto /xev yap ovtc tl
KOfJiifiov ovT ;\;aAe7rot' evp^lv, eKctvo
8'
TJSrj
/cat
XaXeiTov dfjia
/cat KaXov.
0EAI. To TTolov;
HE.
"0
/cat TTpoadev e'lpr^rai, ro ravra idaavra
cos Bward
^
to is XeyofievoLS olov t' ctrat Kad*
eKaoTov iXeyxovTa eTraKoXovdelv, OTav t4 tis
TpOV OV TTT) TaVTOV tVat
(f>fj
/Cat OTaV TaVTOV ov
D Tpov, eKeivrj /cat /car' CKeZvo 6
(f)7]aL
tovtcov ttc-
TTOvdevai TTOTepOV. to 8e TaVTOV TpOV d7TO(f)aLVlV
dfjbi]
ye tttj /cat to daTcpov TavTov /cat to
fxeya
afMLKpov /cat TO ofioiov dvofioiov, /cat ;^atpetv oyroj
i
TdvavTia del TTpo(f>ipovTa ev rot? Adyoi?, ovt tls
!
eXeyxos o6tos dXrjdivog dpTi re tcov ovtcov tlvos
i
i(f>a7TTOfj,Vov
SrjXos veoyevrjs cl)v.
0EAI.
K-OixiSfj fxev
ovv.
44*
HE. Kat yap, coyade, to ye rrdv diro nav
TO? eTTLX^ipeiv diTOXoipi^eiv dXXcos Te ovk ififieXes \
E /cat
81)
/cat TravTaTraaiv dixovaov twos /cat d^iXo-
'
a6<f>ov.
0EAI. Tt Sry;
EE. TeAecDTarr^ irdvTcov XoyoiV ecrrlv d<f)avi(TLS
i
TO StaAuetv eKaoTov 0,776 rrdvTcov Sta yap TTyf
^
Swara BTW ; SwardiTara Schanz ;
av-qi/vTa Badham
;
dwarbv fidXiffra Campbell ; Siov avra ? Apelt. ; dwara is cer-
tainly wrong. Possibly ovk ivra or oi;k &^ia (the interpreta- ;
tion adopted in the translation).
424
THE SOPHIST
STR. And if any man has doubts about these
oppositions, he must make investigations and advance
better doctrines than these of ours ; or if he finds
pleasure in dragging words about and applying them
to different things at different times, with the notion
that he has invented something difficult to explain,
our present argument asserts that he has taken up
seriously matters which are not worth serious atten-
tion
;
for this process is neither clever nor difficult,
whereas here now is something both difficult and
beautiful.
THEAET. What is it ?
STR. What I have spoken of beforethe ability
to let those quibbles go as of no account and to
follow and refute in detail the arguments of a man
who says that other is in a sense the same, or that the
same is other, and to do this from that point of view
and with regard for those relations which he pre-
supposes for either of these conditions. But to show
that in some sort of fashion the same is the other,
and the other the same, and the great small, and the
like unlike, and to take pleasure in thus always
bringing forward opposites in the argument,all that
is no true refutation, but is plainly the newborn
offspring of some brain that has just begun to lay
hold upon the problem of realities.
THEAET. Exactly so.
STR. For certainly, my friend, the attempt to
separate everything from everj'thing else is not only
not in good taste but also shows that a man is utterly
uncultivated and unphilosophical.
THEAET. Why so
.''
STR. The complete separation of each thing from
all is the utterly final obliteration of all discourse.
425